9. Fluency in Language Assessment

Huhta, Ari; Kallio, Heini; Ohranen, Sari; Ullakonoja, Riikka

doi:10.21832/9781788926317-011

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reasons why the connection between proficiency and speech fluency might be difficult to define stem from multiple sources. Huhta et al (2020) analysed fluency measures in language assessment and found that even if in most fluency scales certain features appear frequently (e.g., pauses and hesitation), the definition of fluency varies considerably. Individuals seem to pay attention to different subcomponents of fluency, which underlines the subjectivity of fluency perceptions.…”

Section: Speech Fluency: Objective and Subjective Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluency profiles in L2 monologue production: the role of underlying cognitive factors

Olkkonen,

Mutta,

Lintunen

2024

AFinLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the role of cognitive fluency and different fluency profiles that underlie L2 speech fluency, in relation to cognitive efficiency in L1 and L2, in a group (n = 64) of university students of English. The participants conducted, first, a freely produced monologue narration task in L1 and L2. Second, they performed two cognitive tasks in L1 and L2 measuring the efficiency of lexical access: a rapid word naming task and a Stroop task. Thirdly, L2 proficiency level was assessed with a vocabulary test. The correlations between proficiency and cognitive variables were low to moderate. Based on a cluster analysis, the participants were divided into four fluency profile groups differing in speech and disfluency rate, proficiency, and efficiency of processing. The results suggest that an awareness that learners represent various fluency profiles based on cognitive variables can aid formal teaching situations to include more versatile tasks for different kinds of learners.

show abstract

Section: Speech Fluency: Objective and Subjective Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluency profiles in L2 monologue production: the role of underlying cognitive factors

Olkkonen,

Mutta,

Lintunen

2024

AFinLA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, L2 fluency has also been defined from a narrow perspective, where specific and analysable features of speech (e.g., speed and silence) are used to conceptualise and represent fluency. Adopting a narrow perspective to understanding L2 fluency has been shown effective in researching the nature of fluency (Hunter, 2017; Kahng, 2014), in examining the assessment of fluency (Huhta et al., 2019), and in language teaching and teacher training programmes (Derwing et al., 2008). Based on this narrow perspective, several definitions have also been offered to define L2 fluency, most of which highlight the speaker's ability to produce speech with “native‐like rapidity” (Housen et al., 2012, p. 2), and the extent to which the flow of speech is affected by pauses and repairs (Derwing, 2017).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task communicative function and oral fluency of L1 and L2 speakers

Morrison,

Tavakoli

2023

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To respond to recent calls for examining oral fluency from a broader social and communicative perspective, the current study aimed at investigating the effects of task communicative function on second language (L2) and first language (L1) speakers’ fluency. Designing tasks that represent three different communicative functions (congratulations, bad news, and complaint), we collected data from 40 Spanish L2 learners of English, 20 L1 English speakers, and 20 L1 Spanish speakers. The data were analysed for a range of measures of speed, composite, breakdown, and repair fluency. Results of the statistical analyses (descriptive, Multivariance Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), and two‐way mixed Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs)) suggested that task communicative function had an impact on the speakers’ performance, with bad news eliciting the slowest speech and most mid‐clause pauses, and complaint the fastest with fewest end‐clause pauses. Significant differences were observed across the tasks for speech rate and end‐clause pauses in the L1 English group, but the results were nonsignificant for task effects in the L1 Spanish and L2 English groups. The three language groups’ fluency was statistically different, highlighting (a) cross‐linguistic differences between L1 Spanish and L1 English speakers and (b) differences between L1 and L2 English speakers.

show abstract

“…Mean length of run is concerned with the average number of words or syllables between pauses (De Jong, Groenhout, Schoonen, & Hulstijn, 2015;Prefontaine, 2010). Accounts on studies (Huhta, Kallio, Ohranen, & Ullakonoja, 2019), the learners' ability to manipulate speak relies upon both linguistic features involving pause and other factors, namely, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and non-linguistic features referring to the perceived quality of interaction between the learner and an interviewer. Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) highlighted two main approaches for assessing fluency in oral performance: obtaining ratings by providing general descriptors of different levels of accuracy and fluency; calculating various discourse based measures.…”

Section: Fluency As One Dimension Of Speakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fluency, in light of Leonard's (2015) classification, falls into three zones of perceived, utterance, and cognitive ones. Perceived fluency, referring to the impression that a listener has of a speaker's fluency (Lintunen, Mutta, & Peltonen, 2020), is a manner of subjective reaction to individuals' speech in that different listeners may have different reactions to or impression on the same speech (Huhta, Kallio, Ohranen, & Ullakonoja, 2019). Utterance fluency entails quantifiable features of one's oral speech comprising rate, pauses, repair, and mean length of run which occur in individuals' speech (Kormos & Denes, 2004;Préfontaine, 2010).…”

Section: Fluency As One Dimension Of Speakingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the Fluency of the Iranian EFL Learners’ Oral Performance through Task Variation

Dogolsara

Ahangari²,

Seifoori³

2022

IJREE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers have extensively studied factors that impact the development of fluency in L2 oral production while there is scant evidence regarding task variation-related effects. Therefore, this study sought to investigate the effects of task variation involving group dialogue, dialogue unscrambling, and dialogue completion on Iranian EFL learners' oral speech fluency. To this end, 80 EFL learners were assigned to three experimental groups (EXG1, EXG2, and EXG3) and one control group shown as CONG. The EXG1 was treated by three tasks, i. e., dialogue completion, dialogue unscrambling, and group dialogue, the EXG2 through two tasks involving dialogue completion and dialogue unscrambling, the EXG3 by dialogue unscrambling task, and the CONG was instructed by teacher conventional method. The groups were pretested and posttested through the speaking section of Preliminary English Test (PET). The participants' interview transcriptions were then coded for scoring and statistical analysis of fluency to show the effects of treatment for each group. The four groups received their required instructions for ten sessions. The findings revealed that task variation made significant differences in the learners' oral fluency achievement. The analyses made through running ANOVA and Post Hoc yielded to the conclusion that EXG1, instructed through a combination of the three tasks, outperformed the other groups regarding fluency achievement. The findings of this study have pedagogical implications for teachers, EFL learners, and syllabus designers.

show abstract

9. Fluency in Language Assessment

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Fluency profiles in L2 monologue production: the role of underlying cognitive factors

Fluency profiles in L2 monologue production: the role of underlying cognitive factors

Task communicative function and oral fluency of L1 and L2 speakers

Improving the Fluency of the Iranian EFL Learners’ Oral Performance through Task Variation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About